New Silicon Carbide Semiconductors Bring EV Efficiency Gains

After spending much of the 20th century languishing in development hell, electric cars have finally hit the roads in a big way. Automakers are working feverishly to improve range and recharge times to make vehicles more palatable to consumers.

With a strong base of sales and increased uncertainty about the future of fossil fuels, improvements are happening at a rapid pace. Oftentimes, change is gradual, but every so often, a brand new technology promises to bring a step change in performance. Silicon carbide (SiC) semiconductors are just such a technology, and have already begun to revolutionise the industry.

Mind The Bandgap

A graph showing the relationship between band gap and temperature for various phases of Silicon Carbide.

Traditionally, electric vehicles have relied on silicon power transistors in their construction. Having long been the most popular semiconductor material, new technological advances have opened it up to competition. Different semiconductor materials have varying properties that make them better suited for various applications, with silicon carbide being particularly attractive for high-power applications. It all comes down to the bandgap.

Electrons in a semiconductor can sit in one of two energy bands – the valence band, or the conducting band. To jump from the valence band to the conducting band, the electron needs to reach the energy level of the conducting band, jumping the band gap where no electrons can exist. In silicon, the bandgap is around 1-1.5 electron volts (eV), while in silicon carbide, the band gap of the material is on the order of 2.3-3.3 eV. This higher band gap makes the breakdown voltage of silicon carbide parts far higher, as a far stronger electric field is required to overcome the gap. Many contemporary electric cars operate with 400 V batteries, with Porsche equipping their Taycan with an 800 V system. The naturally high breakdown voltage of silicon carbide makes it highly suited to work in these applications.

It All Adds Up

The benefits of the wider band gap semiconductor flow on to other design factors, too. Thanks to higher breakdown voltage and lower on-resistance, at 1200 volts, a SiC part can have a die size 20 times smaller than a comparable silicon part. This smaller size then helps increase switching speed, further reducing losses which end up as heat. If that weren’t enough, silicon carbide parts can deal with junction temperatures up to 200 C, over and above the 150 C typical of traditional silicon parts.

Breakthroughs in processes have enabled the production of silicon carbide wafers of suitable quality for high-power use.

Until recently, however, silicon carbide wasn’t viable as a semiconductor technology, due primarily to production issues.  Thanks to advances in manufacturing techniques, it’s now possible to create wafers using a single-crystal growth process, with acceptable yields for cost effective production.

All these performance gains place SiC technology in the box seat to revolutionize electric vehicle technology. ST Microelectronics give the example of a traction inverter, the hardware that takes power from the battery and drives an EV’s motor. Able to handle higher voltages in a smaller package, and able to deal with more heat, SiC semiconductors enable the device to be downsized on the order of 70% and have lower cooling requirements. Additionally, with the lower on-resistance and switching resistance, less power is wasted as heat; enabling the vehicle to be more efficient and drive further on a single charge.

The technology also has applications in the charging side of things. SiC parts promise to deliver more compact chargers, capable of delivering a fast charge with lower losses. As electric vehicles continue to proliferate, the demand for fast chargers will skyrocket, so any space and efficiency gains will pay dividends. Any electricity not lost in the charging process doesn’t have to be delivered across an already-strained electricity grid, after all.

Looking To The Marketplace

Tesla’s Model 3 features an inverter built with silicon carbide technology, increasing efficiency and reducing cooling requirements.

These devices have already hit the market in a big way. Tesla’s Model 3 was one of the first vehicles on the road to use the technology, with its main inverter packing 24 SiC MOSFET modules sourced from ST Microelectronics. It’s likely that, due to the production ramp up of their mass-market model, Tesla were using the vast majority of ST’s production in 2018. Since then, similar hardware has been rolled out to the Model S and Model X Long Range models, with silicon carbide inverters and other improvements helping push the vehicle’s maximum range up to 370 miles.

Other automakers are rushing to get on the bandwagon, with the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance also signing an agreement to use parts from ST. Meanwhile, Bosch are also ramping up to produce components at their new Dresden plant. It’s currently unclear where these parts will end up, but with Bosch’s long history as a Tier 1 automotive supplier, it’s likely they’ve got a significant customer base at their fingertips.

Eventually most, if not all, electric vehicles will make the switch to silicon carbide technology in the coming years. Vehicles using SiC hardware will have the edge in packaging, power efficiency, range, and performance, and it’s unlikely vehicles using traditional silicon hardware will be able to compete effectively in the medium term. While silicon parts will still have a place in digital and low-voltage subsystems, it’s highly likely that silicon carbide will take the reigns in the power electronics of the electric car moving forward.

47 thoughts on “New Silicon Carbide Semiconductors Bring EV Efficiency Gains

  1. I used my first SiC MOSFET way back in 2013 and I was stunned by its speed and efficiency at such high operating voltages
    A single mosfet switching 900v quick enough and efficiently enough to handle 18khz with ease was really stunning
    But due to costs the final product had an IGBT module and large heatsink

    1. Add a Zero… 180khz With 98%+ efficiency are doable…. EV ppl are living in a cheap.. Other Industries are using wide bandgap for years… GaN’s already here for lower (read: for what you would do with super junction mosfets) voltages and even higher frequencies.


  2. Even faster charging speeds, is this even needed to be fair?

    After all, most electric vehicles that can go a decent distance can usually drive for over 2 hours on one charge, then recharge most of that in less time than it takes a restaurant to cook one’s food…. The car could charge a bit slower, putting less strain on the power grid, and one’s battery. Increase charging efficiency in the process too, while also allowing one to have some time to eat…

    So why the ever increasing hurry?

    I can though understand if one needs to charge more than once on a trip, that makes it a different story. Though, I guess road side attractions will slowly get more and more popular with the rise of electric vehicles.

    But the increased efficiency internal to the car itself is though also a large positive. Since that means one has less to charge to start with, or that one gets further on that charge.

    Now if only cars were a bit more aerodynamic…

    Though, in the end, for the really long trips, it would be arguably more time efficient, to just put the car on a train. Since then one doesn’t need to drive, it can charge, and one can watch a movie or do whatever in the meantime while the train moves one at a speed faster then what is legal on a road and maintaining superior energy efficiency. (Though, then a country needs some good train service…..)

      1. Changing the series parallel configuration of a battery honestly doesn’t effect resistive losses as far as battery chemistry is concerned. Since electrical resistance is usually not the major part of a battery’s internal resistance.

        Since the heat dissipation of a given cell is not affected by how many cells we have in series or parallel, but rather it is only affected by the amount of power we take out of it, or try to stuff into it.

        In short, if you have 1000 cells in parallel and move 1 kW of power through them, or if you have the cells in series, doesn’t actually effect how much heat we generate in a given cell. Since each cell will be providing 1 watt in both scenarios, and have the same associated energy loss when providing that power.

        The amount of energy loss is though dependent more on the cell capacity and the charge/discharge ratio compared to that capacity. (Ie the battry’s C rating practically.) And also the construction and material choices within the battery.

        So in short, for a given battery capacity, putting the cells more in series doesn’t make a difference, since the capacity remains the same.

        Energy loss within electrical wiring is though a thing that will get reduced power dissipation due to lower current of the higher supply voltages for a given amount of power. But a well built battery and drive train normally has a fairly hefty amount of copper, so this shouldn’t be a major source of energy loss to begin with.

        So higher voltages for a given battery capacity isn’t going to lower charging losses.

        Charging slower on the other hand will.

      1. I don’t really see much need for more than a 2 hour range on an electric car. Maybe 3, but more than that just means one is lugging around a heavy battery most of the time without any real reason for it.

        Just like one could buy a phone with a huge battery, downside is, it weighs more. And carrying around a battery bank for those times one knows it won’t last is so much easier, or just charge it were such facilities exists.

        (Places to charge a phone is cropping up every here and there, and car chargers too….)

        But the difference with a car is though that it is hard to just carry along a battery bank for it in one’s pocket. (Even if a large crate full of batteries that one can stove into the trunk would be useful for longer trips, since it is only there when one needs it, instead of always weighing one down on every short trip one makes as well…)

        My original comment were though more about the idea of faster charging speeds. Something that already is so fast that it is more annoying than useful at times. Though, wouldn’t be hard for EV makers to just add a feature for one to state how long one will be away, so that it can adapt its charging speed in accordance to that.

        And for really long journeys, alternative modes of transportation is also an option.

        1. Slower charging also means that more charging stations are needed. It has no overall effect on the electrical grid since the same number of KWH need to be fed into batteries.
          And, yes, faster is better since I can get back on the road sooner. When my EV can knock off 1000KM at a time, I’ll stop complaining.

          1. The charging losses of a battery is larger at a higher charging speeds.

            So no, the overall effect on the electric grid isn’t the same. It would be lower if cars charged slower. And on a local standpoint, the local grid wouldn’t have to deal with as large load variations over time.

            Though yes, more charging stations would be needed. But they already crop up all over the place where I live.

          1. That wouldn’t be a bad plan Alex, 1000lb teardrop type trailer full of battery. Pick up and drop off at car rental place or other distribution chain that deals with that sort of thing.

          2. RW ver 0.0.1
            Yes, renting a battery pack wouldn’t a too alien concept, at least in my mind.

            And it would be logical for longer trips, since then one doesn’t need to always drag around the extra weight of some additional battery capacity.

            Though, Tesla has their battery swap thing going, so that is also a way to do it.

            And I have stated before here on HaD that one could have a swappable battery system that allows a user to simply and easily swap batteries in an EV without the hassle of proprietary battery formats etc… Though, in practice such a system would most likely have all sorts of bureaucratic things making it a mess…

          3. Alexander Wikstro”m wrote:
            “Though, Tesla has their battery swap thing going, so that is also a way to do it.”
            They have dropped that ability in their current model.

        2. You are assuming that “Everybody owns a car”. Let’s play with some ideas. Let’s say you are a taxi driver. You want to keep your car on the road delivering people. Or maybe you are a delivery driver…

          In both cases, if you can run for 4 to 6 hours between charges and then take half an hour meal break while the vehicle charges, you can keep on going.

          Now, me the customer, no longer needs a car for trips. I can get a taxi to the train/airport and travel inter-city without ever bothering to own a car.

          1. Taxis stick to servicing the cities (I’m only 15mins out of a major city and I got ghosted multiple times when requesting a taxi ride to the airport, had to drive very much over the speed limit to the airport with my own car repeatedly because of this).

            They don’t want to service areas where they won’t get another fare quickly.

          2. Unlike Elon Musk, I embrace public transportation with open arms.
            And would prefer if substantially fewer people used cars.

            And for a Taxi, yes, a longer range would be needed.

            Though, I don’t assume everyone owns a car. In fact, where I live statistically fewer people have cars to start with than what people do in the US. (Since public transportation isn’t laughably inefficient in Europe.)

          3. The idea of owning a car is to have it available anytime on short notice, being not bound to schedules or stations and to are not required to do time consuming changes of means of transport.
            I know, that not everybody has the money to own a car, but if I can afford it, it is for sure the most comfortable solution. And that is what counts for me.

          4. @ Alexander Wikström:
            I prefer it, if I am able to use individual transportation (car, motorbike). Of course I do not mind, if other people use public transport – keeps the roads clear :-)
            I also strongly prefer, not to have to carry all the stuff on person: Go shopping, throw the stuff into the trunk or go to work and have stuff you want to use afterwards (e.g. for sports or other leisure activity) in the car. It is just so much more convenient.

        3. Two hours under what temperature, what battery age and what circumstances? Based on ‘American Automobile Association Inc. Electric Vehicle Range Testing in relation to ambient temperature and HVAC use’ you might see anything from a 17% to a 41% drop in range based on external temperatures and HVAC use. As the battery undergoes charge discharge cycles, the overall capacity of the battery will drop to, further reducing the range under those circumstances.

          1. Well, “two hours” is just a rough estimate, 3 hours works fine too.

            My comment is more in regards to that a battery shouldn’t be scaled way above what a user will actually need.

            Since a larger battery adds weight, and that weight will reduce the energy efficiency of the vehicle, and also increase its wear on the roads due to added weight. It isn’t really about “less is more”, but rather about finding the sweet spot for battery capacity.

            If that is 2 hours or 5 is all down to what service the vehicle will be providing, and also where one lives.

            But to answer your question of “what battery age and what circumstances?”

            In short, it isn’t unreasonable to expect it to deliver an adequately usable range for its expected service life. (Like still being able to reach lets say a “2 hour drive” after 3-5 years of daily service.)

            A 2 hour drive as in 120-150 miles. (200-240 km) (And a reasonable amount of air conditioning, but maybe not “optimal” comfort all days of the year…)

        4. Just like one could buy a phone with a huge battery, downside is, it weighs more. And carrying around a battery bank for those times one knows it won’t last is so much easier, or just charge it were such facilities exists.

          (Places to charge a phone is cropping up every here and there, and car chargers too….)

          So you suggest to carry thinner phone plus cable (around half meter or more – you never know where the socket is) and powerbank because that is more practical? You do know that for last 5 years the main complain is battery life – not thickness?

    1. I have the feeling you live in one of the countries that don’t really believe in global warming and still think EV’s are for climate activists. Given your fear of putting strain on the power grid, one may even wager an educated guess on which country that is. There are a lot of countries around the world that haven’t neglected their infrastructure.

      Where I live (some call it the gateway to Europe) a lot of development is taking place in the EV world. The bus I take on a daily basis (Indeed, we actually use public transport) is electric. At the end of the line, there is a construction above the road where a shoe on top of the bus plugs into the grid. Faster charging speeds will allow this system to be used on far more routes.

      We also started to replace the few Diesel railways we have left with battery powered trains. Faster charging may even make it possible for these trains to run continuously, only charging at the train stops.

      And yes, most of our taxis are electric. Once again, these would benefit greatly with faster charging speeds. In fact, faster charging speeds won’t just help the drivers. The number of (expensive) charging stations needed for EV rollout is also much lower if charging speeds are increased.

    2. A lot of comments about the weight of a battery and how inefficent lugging that extra weight is.
      Sure, there are some losses, but the aerodynamics of the vehicle wouldn’t change (and that is by far the biggest energy sucker), and regenerative braking recoups most of what you dump in to get the vehicle up to speed in the first place.
      Only downside I see with a bigger/heavier battery is less stellar acceleration.

      1. For most passenger vehicles, you have to be going fairly fast for aerodynamic drag to exceed rolling resistance. It varies a lot with vehicle and temperature, but figure 40 or 50 mph as the breakeven point.

        Regenerative braking is significant only in stop-and-go driving or very hilly country. Even under best possible conditions, don’t expect a stop-and-go cycle with regenerative braking to use less than half the fuel it would without. It’s just not that good.

    3. You do not need a big dinner after every two hours of driving. At most a coffee break.

      With a conventional cor you can make 1000km/day with ease, for me that’s the comparison, an EV has to beat or at least to match. Although most driving I do is very short range, I expect my car also to be usable for holiday trips.
      When you need to use a train, you have all it’s drawbacks: you are bound to stations and schedules and you loose time for loading and unloading.
      Don’t forget: The comparison is the already well developed conventional car. Satisfying the climate hysterics is not enough value alone.

  3. I don’t get it, this post. Was this generated from a press release by ST or something? This contains no content and is just marketing fluff. ST SiC fets are difficult to obtain from normal distributors, most of STs production line is dedicated to parts for EV inverters.

    SiC parts are great, along with GaN, another wide bandgap semiconductor. The biggest usage for this so far aside from EV motor drives has been SiC diodes for PFCs, which significantly reduce switching losses.

      1. In a nutshell, from what I can remember, GaN is better for high frequency, and SiC is better for high power.

        I think Infineon sells parts with both technologies and has some marketing slides comparing them and maybe some white papers on them.

      2. GaN is a lot less commercially mature. Right now for power it is used in low/medium power stuff at high frequency, they have a lot lower gate capacitance so they are easer to drive at high frequency. On the drain side the capacitance / on resistance figures of merits are basically the same.

        Based on the bandgap GaN devices should be better than SiC devices, but they have had problems. The biggest is that GaN devices do not avalanche; a transient over voltage condition damages them. SiC and Si MOSFETs avalanche and absorb that energy without damage. On top of that GaN has a lot of unexplained loss mechanisms, with an increased on resistance and loss in the output capacitance at high frequencies.

        A few things use GaN at low voltages but I would give GaN ~5 more years until they can fabricate device structures that are avalanche rated and fix some of the anomalous loss issues.

      3. The biggest difference (in my eyes) is that GaN devices lack a body diode, meaning they by definition do not have reverse recovery loss when turning on.
        Don’t get too excited; despite lacking a body diode, GaN cannot reverse block more than maybe a couple volts because reverse bias on the device will leak current into the gate and turn it on anyway, forcing some very lossy reverse conduction to occur.
        Also, GaN still has drain-source capacitance like Si and SiC, just less than SiC and significantly less than Si for similar voltage rating and Ron specs.

        SiC still has a body diode, so it still has reverse recovery loss, but it is significantly reduced compared to Si devices of similar voltage/Ron specs. SiC’s reverse recovery loss is so low that a major application for it is very fast diodes. They have higher voltage drop than Si diodes, but they turn on and off very quickly and with very low loss. They can be drop-in replacements for Si diodes.

        Off the top of my head, SiC has a higher temperature rating, higher thermal conductivity, and less severe temperature coefficient of resistance than GaN, allowing for in practice better performance than a device of similar ratings.

        SiC devices tend to have higher voltage ratings than GaN; GaN traditionally tops out at 650 V, while SiC starts at 650 V. This isn’t set in stone, since GaNPower claims to be producing 1200 V rated GaN devices, and there is research at Virginia Tech for producing trench GaN devices for 1200 V rating.

        Voltage rating for GaN isn’t as clear-cut as it is for Si and SiC because GaN devices do not experience avalanche breakdown. Voltage rating for GaN is defined as the drain-source voltage at which the leakage current exceeds a certain threshold, which can vary between manufacturers. If you are okay with higher leakage, you can run these devices at higher than rated voltage if you’re very careful about it. When I asked a GaN device manufacturer rep at a conference once about what the real voltage rating of GaN devices is, he laughed and said “when the device is heating up while turned off, the drain-source voltage is too high”.

        The most blatant difference is gate drive requirements. Ignoring “Si Gate-compatible” cascode devices, SiC FETs generally require about 15 V on, -5 V off gate drive, while GaN FETs require 5 V on, 0 V off.
        SiC devices are complicated because they require a gate drive that can go negative, which generally entails some sort of charge pump or isolated supply to generate the negative rail.
        GaN devices have very low headroom between the needed voltage for a low-loss on state (5 V) and the absolute maximum gate voltage (generally around 6 V), requiring an especially careful gate drive loop layout to minimize overshoot.

        For more detailed information, have a look at a 650 V GaN device datasheet (I suggest one of the higher power GaN Systems devices) and a 650 V SiC device datasheet, and compare.

        If you have access to a library with IEEExplore access, there are papers out there comparing SiC to GaN, but I don’t know any off the top of my head. If you search SiC or GaN, you’ll have an idea of where each device type is generally applied.

        To summarize, GaN is generally used in small converters up to 2-3 kW, while SiC is generally used in the 1 kW – 1+ MW range. GaN can be frighteningly fast; I was told that it is used for nanosecond-length laser pulsing. SiC is mainly used as a replacement for Si IGBTs in high power applications.

        1. Another difference is that SiC MOSFETs are usually rugged under avalanche conditions (unclamped inductive switching=UIS) Note: Varies depending upon SiC MOSFET supplier.

          But presently-available GaN devices cannot survive any avalanche events.

          The capability to survive avalanche events is a nice feature when driving inductive loads.

          1. Yes. GaN devices have to be significantly over-rated. They often give an absolute max surge voltage which is indicative of this over-rating. Unlike SiC and Si devices, which can avalanche, the GaN HEMTs have no intrinsic way of dealing with over-voltage conditions. Over voltage events, such as unclamped inductive switching, will destroy the device. In that document TI is just advertising the extra voltage margin their parts have.

  4. So, EV’s are not viable just because your country has rural areas large enough to make using EV’s problematic?

    Do you realise there is a world outside of your county? And do you realise a rural area has, by definition, a small amount of inhabitants? Even in the USA, over 80% of the population lives in urban area’s. EV technology won’t fail because it may not fit your use case.

    About 50% of the population has no use for a bra. Yet I still see people selling them.

    1. 1) You ignored the fact that this post is clearly regarding the USA, not the subjugated urban masses in EU, UK, etc… Who needs a constitution or liberty! Yay!
      2) You made no attempt to refute a single point I made other than referring to a census bureau statistic that applies only to Urban USA areas, areas that depend solelty on non-EV technology to supply the food, water, materials and everything else that these Urban areas need to survive and cannot ever provide themselves…
      3) You then made an odd/obtuse statement about womens’ undergarments being sold in unspecified amounts despite some of the population having no need for them…???

      I don’t know where you are from but it appears to be somewhere that concepts like “rural” may not be well understood and your needs for basic survival and transportation are met by spending currency without having to really think about where it comes from or how that process could be different somewhere else in the world.

      I welcome reasonable, constructive discourse but I could find none of this in your post, sir! Please try again, I welcome discussion on this.

      1. Yes, you clearly welcome reasonable and constructive discourse. “subjugated urban masses in EU, UK…”.

        Sadly, that very first sentence also shows your lack of general knowledge. For instance, the UK is part of the EU. Also, your constitution is based on and modeled after the Magna Carta and bill of rights. Both documents written in Europe. Both, in essence, still in effect. Actually, your concept of democracy is also from Europe.

        As for freedom itself, do you realise the USA isn’t even in the top-10 of the freedom index? That’s actually dominated by EU countries.

        Now, as for your actual argument: It hinges on the claim that EV technology is not viable (“This does noting to address the real problems preventing EV’s from being viable.”) because it may not yet be useful in some rural settings. (“Until you can park that EV and leave it sitting in your garage unpowered go back to it 3 months later, start it up and drive it the equivalent of a “full tank of gas”, what is the point?”).

        I have shown, using actual verifiable facts, that only a small percentage of possible EV technology users live in those rural areas. You however, have tried to refute my argument with, well, I’m not even sure what to call it. Following your logic, only 80% of “Urban USA areas” are “Urban USA areas”. Also, following your logic, EV viability hinges on the USA?

        And yes, I have ignored a lot of your tales, such as the one about the ozone layer (show me a single scientific paper claiming EV damages the ozone layer…).

        I do welcome reasonable and constructive discourse. But for that, you need verifiable facts and respect, not Fox News.

        1. The United States Constitution sets out the structure of a government. It bears little relation to the Magna Carta other than that the M.C. is one of the thousands of pieces of information that the Founders uses in crafting the Constitution.

  5. Fact: Brexit hasn’t happened yet. In fact, it’s unsure it will ever happen. The UK is part of the EU, at least for now. You can verify this pretty much everywhere.

    Fact: The ozone layer is NOT damaged by production of any battery common in EV, be it lithium-based or otherwise. You can verify this by reading the actual science. Ozone depletion is caused by chlorine and bromine. Neither are significantly involved in production of these batteries (I assume the cleaners may clean toilets in the factory using chlorine, but the actual processes don’t require it), nor are so called ODS (Ozone depleting substances, substances containing chlorine or bromine that break apart in the atmosphere) used.

    Fact: The world is slightly larger than just the USA. You can verify this by looking at most world maps. Even the Mercator projection shows the USA is only a small part of the world.

    Fact: What happened in 1776 is, on a global scale, not interesting. But I know how much pride US citizens take in the revolution. Nonetheless, neither I nor the countries I live(d) in lost in 1776. The losing side would be the British. You can verify this by looking in most American history books. (Just remember to ignore the parts where the earth is just 4000 / 6000 / 7000 years old)

    Fact: Something that doesn’t work for rural USA can be a success in other parts of the world. Kinder eggs, to name a silly example, are hugely successful in most of the world, just not in the USA.

    Fact: I can know things about a country / society without having lived there. I use scientific sources, such as the freedom index. Others may use other sources like the news or even fake news. Verification of this is indeed slightly more difficult. However, given your earlier claim about EU countries (“not the subjugated urban masses in EU, UK, etc… Who needs a constitution or liberty! Yay!”) it seems you have in fact accepted this already. That is, assuming of course, you haven’t lived in most EU countries (and the UK, if you wish to name it separately).

    1. I precede this with an apology for feeding the troll this one last time :-o


      You need to check your data. The Brexit referendum passed in June 2016. The continued extensions on implementation only delay the inevitable.

      In regards to ozone depletion, I am sorry – You are sadly incorrect and I welcome you to read some studies regarding this – Just stay away from the “climate change/global warming” zealous and find good, peer reviewed information that follows the scientific method – The data is out there, and it is alarming. Even if you ignore the impacts of lithium battery manufacturing on the ozone layer, the carbon footprint of this technology alone is simply staggering and exposes the extreme hypocrisy on this subject. Make no mistake – EV’s should be used to clean up cities with ground level pollution issues – They are NOT good for the rest of the planet!

      Your USA comment confuses me, after I pointed out (twice?) that my comments regarding viability were referring to the USA where urban areas make up only a few percent of our travel-able land (not to mention all the other countries where this is true and the power infrastructure is even worse!) you are still stuck on this. I don’t know what to say.

      In regards to “Something that doesn’t work for rural USA can be a success in other parts of the world.”… Where did I say that this was not true? Nowhere. Please replace your reading glasses.

      In regards to 1776: The correct response was “1776 shaped the world in more ways than what can be described and thanks for saving us from the nazis”. Also I am not aware of any history books which claim the earth is only a few thousand years old, I believe you are referring to the religions which force linear unbroken timeline on their religious texts which is a completely different avenue of conversation which I prefer to avoid.

      And finally: “I can know things about a country / society without having lived there.” – Based on everything you have written thus far, I am sorry to tell you that this does not appear to be true. I had to look this “freedom index” you mentioned – A “libertarian think tank” founded by the significantly right-leaning and incredibly wealthy Koch family? This is your “scientific” source??? No. Just no.

      I’ve spent more than a decade of my life in the UK, EU, Asia and South America. I can say with certainty that out of all the countries I have visited, the USA has the most personal liberties, the EU has the most beautiful women, Asia has the best food, and South America has the most beautiful land. These are generalizations but averaged across the many regions that I have visited within each place, it is true for my experience and tastes. If you don’t think the masses are being “subjugated”, try getting an EU citizen to talk honestly with you about how the mass migration of 3rd world people has affected their freedoms, quality of life, safety, and hopes for the future. I recommend Hungarians for the most intense experience, though an honest swedish or german will be similar. Let’s not even mention Londonistan because that place is lost. Even comparing to 10 years ago it has changed significantly and I’m not talking about brexit.

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.